Comparable outcomes with autologous chondrocyte implantation and microfracture surgery .
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(11):142 J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89(10):2105-12This study was based on previous work completed by the same authors in 2004 which looked at the outcomes of autologous chondrocyte implantation and microfracture surgery at 2-year follow-up. This current study looks at outcomes at 5-year follow-up. 80 patients with a single chronic symptomatic cartilage defect on the femoral condyle were randomized to undergo one of two treatments. One group underwent an autologous chondrocyte implantation procedure while the other group underwent microfracture surgery. Results showed that clinical outcomes were comparable between the two groups. One-third of the patients showed radiographic signs of early osteoarthritis at the 5-year follow-up.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
1/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
1/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
2/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
Autologous chondrocyte implantation and microfracture surgery are two procedures used in the treatment of cartilage lesions, but there is uncertainty on what is the best method for treatment. In 2004, the authors of this current study presented the results of these two methods of treatment at the 2-year follow-up. This study examines autologous chondrocyte implantation compared to microfracture surgery in the treatment of cartilage lesions at the 5-year follow-up.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
What are the clinical outcomes of performing autologous chondrocyte implantation compared to microfracture procedure on patients with a single chronic symptomatic cartilage defect on the femoral condyle at the 5-year follow-up?
- There were no significant differences seen between the two groups on the Lysholm score (p=0.227) and the VAS scores (p=0.278) at the 5-year follow-up.
- Both the implantation and microfracture group saw clinically significant improvements from preoperative measures at the 2 and 5-year follow-up.
- 72% of the patients in both groups saw an improvement in pain and 80% of the patients had better Lysholm scores from baseline at the 5-year follow-up. (p<0.05)
- At the 5-year follow-up, both groups saw 9 failures (23%) compared to the 2-year follow-up where the implantation group saw 2 failures and the microfracture group saw 1.
- Patients with the best-quality cartilage (mainly hyaline) examined at the 2-year follow up did not have any subsequent failures.
- No correlation was seen with histological quality and clinical outcomes.
- At the 5-year follow-up, 1/3 of the patients in each group showed radiographic evidence of early osteoarthritis.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
No significant differences were seen in clinical and radiographic outcomes between the autologous chondrocyte implantation group and the microfracture group at follow-up. 77% of patients in both groups saw satisfactory results. At the 5-year follow-up, 1/3 of the patients saw early radiographic signs of osteoarthritis. The study also proposed that microfracture surgery should be the first option for treatment due to it's minimally invasive and low-cost factors.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Patients may not find any significant differences when undergoing autologous chondrocyte implantation or microfracture procedure in the treatment of cartilage lesions. Further studies are required to determine the long-term effects of both treatments as well as the progression of osteoarthritis.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
